U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF C-H-1-S- CORP

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: NOV. 16.2017

APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION

PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER

The Petitioner, an international hotel franchiser. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its "Manager, Partner and Performance Management"' under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L). 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-IB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with '"specialized knowledge·· to work temporarily in the United States.

The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, as required. that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. that she has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge. or that she will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in the United States.

On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded evidence in the record. misinterpreted the statutory definition of "specialized knowledge." and failed to apply U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy guidance pertaining to the L-1 B visa classification. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of the company" s internal systems, Asia-Pacific business operations, and contact center operations that is unique within the industry and within the company.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

To establish eligibility tor the L-1 B nonimmigrant visa classification. a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is manageriaL executive. or involves specialized knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application tor admission into the United States. Section 1 01 (a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition. the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. !d. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training. and employment qualities him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 ).

Matter ofC-H-1-S- Corp

A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B).

Specialized knowledge is also defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, service, research, equipment techniques, management, or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expetiise in the organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D).

II. BACKGROUND

The Petitioner's group is self-described as one of the world's largest lodging companies, with 6,300 franchised hotels in more than 35 countries. The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the U.S.-based position of "Manager, Partner and Performance Management"' and states that she would manage the Shared Services function for all international markets. The Petitioner explained that Shared Services includes the areas of reservations, member services. reputation management. call forwarding, franchisee support, and data channel management.

The Beneficiary has three years of experience with the Petitioner's Australian affiliate, where she currently serves as manager of the Asia-Pacific Contact Center. The Australian entity initially hired her for the position of coaching and development team leader and she had approximately six years of experience in the tourism and hospitality industry with other employers when she was hired.

III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE

In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish how the Beneficiary's familiarity with the company's internal systems, business processes, and outsourced service contracts qualifies as "specialized knowledge" that is distinct or uncommon compared to what would normally be held by a similarly employed professional in the hospitality industry. The Director found that there was insufficient evidence regarding the Beneficiary's company-specific knowledge to establish that it was knowledge that cannot be readily acquired.

On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not provide sufficient specific factual or legal bases for denying the petition, and did not follow USC IS guidance on adjudication of L-1 B petttwns. The Petitioner claims that evidence establishes that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/ laws/policy-memoranda. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's knowledge can normally only be gained within the petitioning organization, that she has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in assignments that are particularly beneficial to the organization, and that she is qualified to contribute to the U.S. operation's knowledge of foreign operating conditions as a result of possessing knowledge not generally found among the company's U.S. employees.

2

.

Matter ofC-H-1-S- Corp

As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insutlicient to establish that she possesses specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that she has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity.

A petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy either prong of the statutory definition of specialized knowledge. Under the statute. a beneficiary is considered to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: (I) a "special'' knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets: or (2) an "advanced'' level of knowledge ofthe processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) ofthe Act. Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has both special and advanced knowledge.

Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge. it is the weight and type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneticiary"s specialized knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the nature of the beneficiary"s knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained such knowledge.

A. Special Knowledge

Determining whether a beneficiary has "special knowledge'' requires review of a given beneticiary"s knowledge of how the petitioning organization manufactures, produces, or develops its products, services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the petitioning organization's products or services and its application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledge that is commonly held throughout a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to another is not considered special knowledge.

Here, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's special knowledge includes "advanced expe1iise with various [Petitioner]-developed in-house proprietary software platforms including

and The Petitioner submitted documentation providing an overview

of and and stated that specialized knowledge of all of the listed systems is required for the offered U.S. position. However, it did not establish how knowledge of the proprietary systems is normally gained within the organization. nor did it explain or document how or when the Beneficiary gained this knowledge. As such. we cannot assess whether this claimed proprietary knowledge, while not generally known in the industry, is knowledge that could be easily imparted to an experienced hospitality professional. It is reasonable to believe that all large

3

.

Matter ofC-H-1-S- Corp

hotel chains use similar systems to manage reservations and customer care, and the Petitioner has not identified aspects of its systems which would differentiate them from those used by other hotel chains. Simply claiming that they are proprietary is insufficient if the proprietary knowledge can be learned within a reasonable amount of time.

The Petitioner has also claimed that the Beneficiary possesses special knowledge of these systems in comparison to other company employees, both in Australia and worldwide. For example, the Petitioner explained that IS Its and notes that the Beneticiary is the only person out of 52 employees in Australia able to train new hires on how each line of business uses the system and how supervisors access this system. The Petitioner states it would require three months of training followed by regular use of the system to achieve the Beneficiary's level of knowledge of this system. The Petitioner makes similar claims regarding the Beneficiary's knowledge of other internal systems, but does not identify the length of training that would be required for any others. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary has knowledge of these company-wide systems "specific to our Asia-Pac hotels'': however, it did not explain how her knowledge of these geographically specific systems is distinct or uncommon within the company.

The Beneficiary's resume suggests that she received, at most, minimal training in these internal systems. The Petitioner's Australian affiliate hired the Beneficiary as "Coaching & Development Team Leader," a supervisory position that involved leading, motivating, training, and developing the company's contact center staff. Her description of this position references "new hire induction training" that included "Systems, Phone technique and Geography (Australia. New Zealand and the United States)" but it is not clear if the Beneficiary herself completed this training or whether she delivered this training to new hires as part of her duties in this position. The Beneficiary held this position only from February 2014 until July 2014 so it appears that any company-specific training she did complete was not lengthy and that she quickly moved into the role of training others.

Regardless, the Petitioner has neither stated nor provided evidence that the Beneficiary completed company-specific training upon joining its foreign atliliate. She came to the foreign entity with three years of experience as a contact center and reservation sales manager with a different company where she performed similar duties, and it appears that this experience qualified her for a similar supervisory role with the Petitioner's foreign affiliate, a role which required her to train others on the Petitioner's proprietary systems.

The Petitioner also indicates that the Beneficiary has expertise in third-party systems used in the travel and hospitality industry, including and

management tool. As with the company-specific systems. the Petitioner did not indicate whether the Beneficiary gained her knowledge of these systems with the foreign entity or whether she was hired with existing knowledge of these systems based on her prior industry experience. The Petitioner states that she is the "only employee" in its Australian atliliate who trains others on some of these systems but did not explain how the Beneficiary's knowledge of third-party systems qualifies as specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's products or services.

4

Matter ofC-H-1-S- Corp

Overall, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge of internal and third-party software systems, tools and platforms used for reservations and customer care functions qualifies as "special knowledge" that is truly distinct or uncommon compared to knowledge generally possessed in the industry or that it would be difficult to impart to a similarly experienced professional.

The Petitioner also emphasized that the Beneficiary gained "expertise in the specialized function areas of [the Petitioner's] domestic and international business models to ensure that we effectively level our global partnerships." While the Petitioner has made this claim repeatedly throughout the record, it has not elaborated on what these "specialized function areas" are, which makes it difficult to evaluate the Petitioner's assertion or to conclude that this claimed knowledge is specialized.

Similarly, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has ''invaluable specialized knowledge" of the Asia-Pacific business which will be critical to her proposed U.S. position, due to the company's focus on international growth. The Petitioner explained that she has ''intricate knowledge" of facilities, vendors, and outsourced call center partners in the Asia-Pacific region. which has been identified as a strategic market for the next five years. However, once again. the Petitioner did not elaborate on the specifics of this knowledge, or explain why information regarding the company's hotels, vendors, and partners would not be readily available to company employees in the company's Shared Services organization. In fact, although the Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States to manage the Shared Services function for all international markets, the Petitioner's organizational chart shows that it already employs a "Manager of International Shared Services." Further, the Petitioner did not explain how knowledge of its hotels. vendors and partners in the Asia-Pacific region is particularly complex, such that it could not be readily imparted to an individual who already has general knowledge and experience with call center and other hotel operations.

On appeal, the Petitioner claims for the first time that the Beneficiary is the "primary liaison·· for the company's eight U.S. and international call centers and notes that these centers are responsible for delivery of sales and support globally, handling all inbound calls, email. and chat for global reservations and sales, member services. reputation management. customer relations. property support, and social media support for all hotels worldwide. However, the record does not support this claim. The foreign entity's organizational chart shows that the Beneficiary is responsible for overseeing two outsourced Philippines-based companies, one of which handles general reservations. email, and member services for the Asia-Pacific region, and one which handles customer relations and call forwarding for the region. It is unclear how the Beneficiary would have acquired experience as the primary liaison for call centers in all markets worldwide based on her role in Australia.

It is evident that the Beneficiary, as a result of her formal education in tourism operations management and six years of work experience, had the industry and management skills needed to quickly adapt to the foreign entity's operating environment. The record also establishes that she has become well-versed in the company's specific internal systems and business model over the past three years. However, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not adequately explained or

5

Matter o.fC-H-1-S- Corp

supported its claims regarding the Beneficiary's special knowledge or how she gained that knowledge. The Petitioner has also not established that the knowledge she possesses is truly distinct or uncommon or that it is knowledge that could not be readily acquired by another individual with a similar educational and professional background.

B. Advanced Knowledge

The Petitioner has not established. m the alternative. that the Beneficiary possesses advanced knowledge.

Determinations concerning "advanced knowledge'' require review of a beneficiary's knowledge of the petitioning organization's processes and procedures. A petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that a given beneficiary has knowledge of or expertise in the organization· s processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in progress. complexity. and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apati from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. Also, as with special knowledge, the petitioner ordinarily must demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another.

The Petitioner has offered several comparisons between the Beneficiary and other company employees, both within the Australian and U.S. operations and in the company at large. For example, on appeal the Petitioner states that she is "one of the very few individuals with the overall company who is familiar with all of[the petitioning group's] contract terms and operational KPis for outsourced partners" and would be "the only person in the U.S. business .. with expert operational knowledge of Shared Services. However. as noted. the Petitioner did not adequately explain how the Beneficiary acquired advanced operational knowledge of the company in comparison to others working in Shared Services. The Petitioner's organizational chart shows that the Beneticiary would be joining an existing "Shared Services Organization'' in the United States which includes a number of managerial staff in this area, including, as mentioned, a manager of international Shared Services.

The Petitioner also stated that the position requires advanced knowledge of the company's "corporate structure, organizational strategies and company policies and procedures'' but did not offer additional details regarding these strategies, policies these procedures. explain how the Beneficiary acquired advanced knowledge in these areas. or discuss how she acquired this knowledge or how it is generally acquired within the organization. Further. the record does not establish that the company provides training in these areas. or otherwise explain why this company­specific knowledge is not readily transferable to another individual with similar industry experience.

The Petitioner also made comparisons between the Beneficiary and other employees of its Australian affiliate by emphasizing that she has comparatively advanced knowledge of internal company systems which is very narrowly held within the company, making her one of the few people qualified to train others in those systems. However, as noted. the Petitioner did not describe its

Matter ofC-H-1-S- Corp

training requirements for these systems or explain how the Beneficiary was able to train others without first undergoing any company-specific training.

The Petitioner has not provided sufficient information that would allow us to compare the Beneficiary's knowledge of company processes and procedures to that of others within the petitioning company and its foreign affiliate and therefore has not supported a claim that her knowledge is "advanced."

We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111. L-1 B Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. However, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary possesses knowledge that is either special or advanced. While the Beneficiary may be filling a role beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness in the marketplace. this characteristic alone is not probative of her specialized knowledge. As noted in the memorandum. the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only ''factors that USCIS may consider when determining whether a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized.'' !d. The memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." I d. at 13. The Petitioner here has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish how the Beneficiary's knowledge qualifies as "special" or "advanced.''

Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. we need not address whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge or would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity.

IV. CONCLUSION

The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofC-H-1-S- Corp, ID# 750369 (AAO Nov. 16, 2017)